About your Search

20130422
20130422
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
graduate student lu lingzi was set for this evening. back in washington, president obama also observed a moment of silence at the white house as did the u.s. senate. but tempers flared earlier at a senate hearing. iowa senator chuck grassley was one of several republicans who've said the bombings, allegedly by two chechen immigrants, raise questions about immigration reform. >> i think we're taking advantage of an opportunity where once in 25 years we deal with immigration to make sure that every base is covered. >> brown: that sparked a heated exchange between grassley and new york democrat chuck schumer. >> i say that particularly those who are pointing to what happened, the terrible tragedy in boston, as i would say an excuse for not doing a bill or delaying it many months and years. >> i never said that. >> i didn't say you did sir. >> i didn't say anything about... >> i didn't mean you, mr. grassley. >> those remarks were not aimed at anyone on this committee or the three witnesses. there are people out there; you've read it in the newspapers; they've said it. >> brown: there were
the obama administration changed the way the war is prosecuted. ordering the pentagon who stop using the term global war on terror. instead calling it an overseas contingency operation. the president's current cia director raised eyebrows when he declared jihad is not necessary lay bad thing. >> as americans, we refuse to live in feemplet nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or islamists because jihad is a holy struggle a legitimate tenet of islam. >> our president says we have a war on al qaeda not a war on terror. >> that's ridiculous. this is ideologically based war which ideology that unfortunately emerges from a religion. >> critics say it comes down to semantics whether the administration considers this a war, involving enemy combatants or a law enforcement challenge. bret? >> bret: jennifer griffin live at the pentagon. thank you. much more on all of this with the panel tonight, an expanded panel. president obama will attend a memorial service thursday for the victims of the west texas fertilizer plant explosion. 14 people were killed in last week's blast and dozens more
the obama administration will allow us that and they have a bad track record. >> and this is not the course the administration will take. they will take reading him his rights after national security exception has run out and prosecuting him in a federal court as well. >> molly: thank you. >> megyn: more breaking news. news reporting that federal charges have now been filed against the surviving suspect. though they are reportedly being filed under seal. that means we don't get to see them. they will have to let it's know what the charges are but perhaps not all the supporting information. in a case of this magnitude there is no way they are going to keep the charges private and not public. in other words, what exactly has he been charged with? a terrorist act, using weapons of mass destruction? these were all on the potential list of charges. so we'll try to get more on what they plan to release to the general public in terms of what they say this man on your screen is actually guilty of according to our federal prosecutors. also, new reaction from the white house about the bombing investi
happened today could have happened 30 days from now. this is what the obama administration wants. they don't care about the intelligence. they made it very clear they want people to have lawyers, to have trials and if we lose intelligence in the process, they say that's regrettable but that's just the way it is. that is unacceptable to me. it should be unacceptable to anybody who cares about preventing future terrorist attacks. >> mitch epnor it has my back up. who cares about my back. all i'm saying it sounds like this is the criminal justice model not a terrorist bombing warfare model. that's something that if administration has been accused of. did they make a mistake here? >> well, i'm going to agree it is a criminal justice model and not a terrorist enemy combatant model. that's clearly true. >> why is it true? >> it's true because he was charged under a criminal complaint today. he was brought before a magistrate. they followed standard operating procedure, every appearance to a criminal complaint t. magistrate always, always informs the defendant that he has a right to a lawyer, tha
to the department of defense for the obama administration. jay, good to see you again, thank you very much for being with us. you have been involved in so many of these issues. we wanted to talk to you, about your take-away about enemy combatant. judicial decisions in a number of cases can you clarify how long can this exception from your wisdom last. is it the point the arrest. or the point of communication? >> well first of all, it's important to remember that any time dangerous criminal, suspect, is arrested for terrorist acts, our first impulse when that suspect is from a foreign land or is of a certain religion, should not be a reach for the military. the military is not the only answer here. and i warned about that in office, the possibility of over militarization of our common terrorism efforts, it's a whole government effort. second, the notion of designating the suspect as an enemy combatant, i'm not even sure is legal. in this situation. to be part of the enemy force in the congressionally authorized armed conflict from 2001, the suspect would need to be either part of al qaeda or an assoc
precisely defined. the obama administration said 48 hours, but that's simply their interpretation. now, this hole miranda issue though i think we can overstate its importance. all miranda does is restrict whether those statements can be used against tsarnaev himself in a court case. they can still use all this other evidence that they have against him. so they may simply decide we're not going to use these statements at all. we're going to prove our case with other evidence. >> true, jeff. >> but then it doesn't matter. >> i'm curious about the voluntary statements. if he offers something up, can't that also be used as opposed to bringing it out in interrogation? >> yes, although it would be difficult to say that an intubated sedated person suddenly decided to write out answers to questions. i think it's quite clear he's being questioned here. the real issue is does the government want to use those answers in court or do they simply want to use it to continue their investigation, which they certainly have every right to do. >> but there's one other issue that relates -- >> go ahead, pr
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)